5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in İstanbul.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant is a nurse working at Eyüp State Hospital. She is also an executive member of the Public Workers’ Union (KESK; Kamu Emekçileri Sendikası).
8.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant was distributing leaflets to members of the Union working at the hospital. The leaflets had been published by the Union to invite its members to forthcoming May the First International Labour Day celebrations.
9.  According to the applicant, a police officer working at the hospital got hold of the leaflets and tore them up. The officer also grabbed the applicant by the arm and forcibly put her in a room used for police purposes at the hospital. The applicant and two of her colleagues documented the police officer’s behaviour in a handwritten report.
10.  Two lawyers, who had been informed of the incident by the applicant’s colleagues, arrived at the police room approximately an hour later and spoke to the police officer. The officer told the lawyers that the applicant was not under arrest. The applicant was released following the arrival of the lawyers.
11.  After her release the applicant was examined by a consultant doctor at the hospital who stated in a report that there were [marks of] trauma on the applicant’s left arm.
12.  The same day the police officer stated in a report that he had “invited the [applicant] to the police room” so that he could check whether the distribution of the leaflets was “lawful”. However, the applicant had “shouted” at him and told him that she would be making an official complaint against him. After he had been told by his superiors that there was nothing wrong with the applicant distributing the leaflets, the applicant had left.
13.  The following day the applicant contacted the Eyüp prosecutor and was referred by that prosecutor to the Eyüp branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant on the same day observed two areas of bleeding under the skin (hyperaemia) on her left arm, each measuring two centimetres, and noted his findings in a report. The doctor considered that the applicant’s injuries would prevent her from working for one day.
14.  On the same day the applicant submitted an official petition to the Eyüp prosecutor’s office, complaining about the use of force and the false imprisonment by the police officer. She submitted that she had been unlawfully detained by the police officer for approximately one hour. She also drew the prosecutor’s attention to her right, guaranteed by section 18 of the Law on Public Workers’ Unions (Law No. 4688), to participate in union activities after working hours or, with the permission of her employer, during working hours. In her petition the applicant named two of her colleagues who had witnessed the incident. With her petition she also enclosed the doctors’ reports.
15.  The same day the Chairman of the Public Workers’ Union also submitted a similarly-worded complaint petition to the same prosecutor and complained about the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected by the police officer.
16.  On 28 April 2005 the prosecutor questioned the police officer in connection with the applicant’s allegations. The police officer denied that he had used force to put the applicant into the police room. He told the prosecutor that he had been doing his job because the applicant had been distributing leaflets during working hours. He added that he had been acting in accordance with the Law on the Powers and Duties of the Police (Law No. 2559).
17.  The applicant’s two colleagues who had co-signed the handwritten report on the day of the incident (see paragraph 9 above) were also questioned by the prosecutor. They maintained that the police officer had been pulling the applicant by the arm and trying to take her to the police room.
18.  Two senior doctors questioned by the prosecutor confirmed that they had seen the applicant in the police room where the applicant had told them that she was under arrest. The police officer had then told them that she was not under arrest and that the reason for her presence in the police room was because the police officer wanted to verify whether she had permission to distribute the leaflets.
19.  On 23 June 2005 the Eyüp prosecutor decided not to bring proceedings against the police officer. The prosecutor considered that the applicant had been distributing the leaflets during working hours. The police officer had taken the applicant to the police room with a view to examining the contents of the leaflets and to establishing whether previous permission had been sought from the hospital administration for their distribution. Following the arrival of the hospital managers the applicant had been sent back to her duty station. Thus, the offence of false imprisonment had not been committed.
20.  According to the prosecutor, the “redness” on the applicant’s arm had been caused when the police officer grabbed her by the arm. Nevertheless, the police officer’s action had not amounted to an assault. The prosecutor concluded that no permission had been sought from the hospital administration for the distribution of the leaflets. Thus the police officer had been doing his job and had not committed any offences.
21.  The applicant lodged an objection with the Beyoğlu Assize Court against the prosecutor’s decision. She pointed out, in particular, that even assuming that no previous permission had been sought for the distribution of the leaflets, that would have been a disciplinary matter for the hospital administration to pursue; the police officer had had no powers to investigate the matter or to deprive her of her liberty. She also disputed the prosecutor’s finding that the police officer had wanted to examine the contents of the leaflets. She argued that if the police officer had really wanted to examine the leaflets, he could have obtained a leaflet from another hospital worker and checked its contents, instead of using force against her and imprisoning her. In her objection the applicant also referred to her rights under the Convention.
22.  On 30 May 2006 the Beyoğlu Assize Court rejected the objection and stated that the prosecutor’s decision was in compliance with the applicable legislation and procedure.